“MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL” (2019) Review

“MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL” (2019) Review

Six years ago, Sony Pictures had announced its intentions to add a fourth entry to the MEN IN BLACK” movie franchise. I have to be honest. I did not receive the news with any real enthusiasm. And my feelings had failed to change when I learned the identities of the movie’s two main stars.

“MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL” only shared a few similarities to the franchise’s past three films. One of the co-stars proved to be Emma Thompson, who had returned for her second appearance in the franchise as Q, the MIB agency’s director. The agency’s Manhattan office also appeared in the film. And the MIB agents were up against another deadly alien trying to conquer Earth. Otherwise, there were major differences in this fourth film. Instead of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, “MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL” starred Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson, who had been co-stars in the 2017 Marvel film, “THOR: RAGNAROK”. Most of the “MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL” locations were set outside of the U.S. in London, Marrakesh, Naples and Paris. The last difference featured the circumstances surrounding the recruitment of Tessa Thompson’s character into the agency. Unlike Will Smith’s Agent J, Thompson’s character had become aware of the Men in Black agency years before she joined it. The biggest difference between this film and the previous three movies involved a potential threat within the internal affairs of the Men in Black.

In 1996 Brooklyn, a young girl named Molly Wright witnesses her parents being neuralysed by Men in Black agents, while she helps an alien escape. Twenty years later, Agents H and High T of the MiB London office travel to Paris to stop an invasion of the Hive – a parasitic race who invade planets by merging with the DNA of the conquered species – at the Eiffel Tower using a wormhole included in the original migration to Earth. After being rejected from the F.B.I. and the C.I.A., due to her “delusions” regarding alien life, Molly tracks down an alien landing and follows MiB agents to their New York City headquarters. Caught entering the agency, Molly makes an impression on the agency’s director, Agent O and becomes probationary agent status as “Agent M”. She is eventually assigned to the London branch.

Agent M’s new supervisor is High T, who has become head of the London office. The latter assigns her to become Agent H’s new partner, who has developed a God complex, unconcerned with his duties and only keeping his job due to High T covering for him. Both M and H are assigned to guard a royal alien named Vungus the Ugly, during the latter’s visit to Earth. A pair of alien twins manage to fatally injure Vungus. The latter gives M a strange crystal before he dies. And the agents of the London office realizes that a MiB agent may have betrayed Vungus to the alien assassins. Due to his lackadaisical behavior, H has become the main suspect. However, this does not last long and M eventually becomes tagged as the agency’s traitor. M and H take matters into their hands and decide to conduct their own investigation – an act that leads them to become fugitives from the Men in Black agency.

Following the release of “MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL”, many critics and fans of the franchise had rained criticism and scorn upon it. Needless to say, the movie proved to be a box office failure, despite making a small profit. It is considered to be the worst film in the franchise. While many blamed the movie’s narrative; the majority of the film’s negative press seemed to stem from the fact that the movie had not been directed by Barry Sonnenfeld, who was responsible for the franchise’s first three films. And there were a handful of disgruntled fans who seemed to resent the presence of Tessa Thompson as one of the film’s leads, due to her gender.

How do I feel about all of this? I do have a few problems with “MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL”. One, this movie is not funny. What I meant is . . . it lacked the twisted and sardonic humor of Barry Sonnenfeld. If I have to be more specific, the film’s humor barely generated any real laughs from me. I merely found myself feeling amused by some of the more comic moments. My second problem with “MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL” was Agent H’s fate near the end of the movie. I did not like it. Considering his age and recent mental condition, I thought he was unnecessarily rewarded for his actions in stopping the main villain. My final problem with the film is basically minor. “MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL” featured the character of Agent O from the 2012 film, “MEN IN BLACK 3”. To me, this was an indication that “MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL” was a continuation of the previous three films. If so, I thought screenwriters Art Marcum and Matt Holloway could have hinted on the fates of Agents J and K from the first three movies. What happened to them?

Despite my complaints about the film, I did not dislike “MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL”. In fact, I enjoyed it very much. And this was due to certain aspects of the film. One, I found some of the movie’s special effects rather impressive, thanks to the visual effects team, Stuart Dryburgh’s cinematography and Thomas Brown’s art direction team. I was especially impressed by those scenes featuring Vungus’ death in London, H, M and Pawny’s escape from Marrakesh and especially their final showdown against the Big Bad at the Eiffel Tower in Paris.

Another aspect of “MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL” that I enjoyed was its cast. Personally, I thought it was first-rate. The movie benefitted from a solid supporting cast that included Laurent and Larry Nicolas Bourgeois (aka Les Twins), who did an excellent job of conveying the silent, yet physical menace of the shape-shifting aliens known as “the Twins”; Tim Blaney, who returned to voice Frank the Pug; Kayvan Novak, who voiced the royal alien Vungus the Ugly; and Spencer Wilding. I found Rafe Spall’s portrayal of Agent C of the UK branch rather sardonic, yet entertaining. Emma Thompson was excellent as usual as the Men in Black director, Agent O. Rebecca Ferguson gave an eccentric, yet funny performance as an alien intergalactic arms dealer and H’s ex-girlfriend Riza Stavros. Liam Neeson’s portrayal of High T, the head of the MIB UK branch, struck as equally off-beat and funny. And I felt that Kumail Nanjiani gave the best voice performance of all as Pawny, the small alien warrior that Agents M and H befriend.

And of course, we have the movie’s two leads – Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson. Many crtics had been impressed by their screen dynamic in the Marvel film, “THOR: RAGNAROK”. This led the producers of this film to cast them together as Agents H and M. And they did not fail. Thompson did a wonderful job as the uber observant and clever Molly Wright, who becomes the agency’s newest recruit, Agent M. Hemsworth did an equally fantastic job in portraying Agent H, one of the agency’s best agents who seemed to be suffering from some kind of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), following his and Agent High T’s defeat of the Hive, three years earlier. Not only did the two leads gave great performances, they also proved that their on-screen dynamic had not dimmed one bit. If I must be brutally honest, I was more impressed by their screen chemistry in this film than I was in “THOR: RAGNAROK”.

I realize that many people may not agree with me on this next topic. But if there is one thing that truly impressed me about “MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL”, it was the screenplay written by Art Marcum and Matt Holloway. I found it very original for a movie from the MEN IN BLACK movie franchise. The previous three movies usually introduced the Big Bad either in the opening scene or not long after the opening. I cannot say the same for this film. Both Marcum and Holloway had not only created a mystery surrounding the Big Bad, they also included a possible traitor or mole within the Men in Black agency that might be assisting the main villain. Now this might be normal in a MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE movie or some other spy thriller. But in a MEN IN BLACK film? For the first time, this franchise had created a combination of a science-fiction movie and an espionage flick. It is a pity that many critics and film goers could not appreciate this. Perhaps it would have been easier if the film had followed the franchise’s usual formula.

In the end, I realized that I would not waste my time lamenting on the box office failure of “MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL”. It was not the first box office bomb that I ended up enjoying. And I doubt that it will be the last. Although I found the film’s humor rather lukewarm – worthy more of a small chuckle instead of a belly laugh – I cannot deny that I truly enjoyed the film’s narrative, along with the exciting action sequences and the talented cast led by Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson, thanks to director F. Gary Gray. Many others may have been disappointed by this film. But I was not.

———————————————–

Post-Script – I recently viewed the movie on DVD. I enjoyed it even more than I did the first time I saw it. And I realized it was funnier than I had originally believed.

“PROMETHEUS” (2012) Review

“PROMETHEUS” (2012) Review

When I had first seen the trailer for director Ridley Scott’s new science-fiction thriller, “PROMETHEUS”, I had no desire to see it. For me, it looked like another “alien in the spaceship” thriller that I have ignored for years. But after some persistent urging from a relative of mine, I finally saw it in the theaters nearly twelve years ago. Many years passed before I finally got around to a re-watch.

According to Greek mythology, Prometheus is a Titan and cultural hero who is believed to be responsible for the creation of man from clay. He also is also responsible for the theft of fire for human use, which enabled the latter to enjoy progress and civilization. Zeus punished Prometheus for the theft by sentencing the Tital to eternal torment. Zeus bounded Prometheus to rock, transformed to an eagle each day to feed on Prometheus’ liver. The latter would grow back and the eagle would feed on it again . . . day after day after day. What does this have to do with the movie, “PROMETHEUS”? Honestly, I do not know. I am not of the intellectual variety. Then again, I hear that Prometheus’ story is supposed to be a metaphor for human striving and quest for scientific knowledge, at the risk of unintended consequences. Hmmm. Now I understand why the filmmakers used this name.

Set in the late 21st century, “PROMETHEUS” is about the crew of the starship Prometheus that follows a star map discovered among the remnants of several ancient Earth cultures. Led to a distant world and an advanced civilization, the crew seeks the origins of humanity, but instead discovers a threat that could cause the extinction of the human race. Although some members of the cast claim otherwise, it has been confirmed that “PROMETHEUS” was developed as far back as the early 2000s as a fifth entry in the ALIEN franchise, with both Scott and director James Cameron developing ideas for a film that would serve as a prequel to Scott’s 1979 science fiction horror film, “ALIEN”. The project remained dormant until 2009, when Scott again became interested. A script by Jon Spaihts served as a prequel to the events of the ALIEN movies. However, Scott chose a different direction for the movie, in order to avoid repeating the storylines of the past films. He recruited “LOST” producer/writer Damon Lindelof to co-write a new script with Spaihts. They created a story in which Scott claimed is not directly connected to the ALIEN franchise.

The movie began with a humanoid alien drinks a dark bubbling liquid, and then starts to disintegrate. As its bodily remains cascade into a waterfall, the alien’s DNA triggers a biogenetic reaction. The story jumps to the year 2089, when archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway discover a star map among several unconnected ancient cultures. The pair believes the maps are invitations from humanity’s creators or “Engineers”. Peter Weyland, the aging CEO of Weyland Corporation, funds the scientific vessel Prometheus to follow the map. The ship’s crew travels in stasis while the android David monitors their voyage, until they arrive at Moon LV-223. Mission director Meredith Vickers orders them to avoid making contact with any of the “Engineers” without her permission. The Prometheus lands near a large artificial structure, which a team explores. The expedition team manages to find an alien corpse and believe it to be an “Engineer”. Their expedition takes an ugly turn they discover that the “Engineers” and other life forms on the moon prove to be a lot more dangerous than they had imagined.

After my family and I watched the last reel of “PROMETHEUS”, the relative who had convinced me to see the movie leaned over and offered her apologies. She even offered to reimburse me for my movie ticket. Why? Because I discovered that my original reluctance to see the movie had been justified. I disliked “PROMETHEUS”. Wholeheartedly. It turned out to be the kind of the movie that I usually dislike. Not only did it turned out to be the typical science-fiction horror film that usually turned me off, I found the movie’s intellectual aspects of the plot pretentious and incomplete. Were there any aspects of “PROMETHEUS” that I liked? Well . . . the entire cast gave solid performances, aside from some questionable accents from at least two of the cast members. I cannot deny that Dariusz Wolski’s photography was breathtaking. Or that Pietro Scalia’s editing was first rate. And Ridley Scott did a great job in maintaining a steady pace for the movie, despite its 124 minutes running time. Other than that . . . there was nothing else about this film that impressed me.

I have few questions. Why did Elizabeth Shaw assume that the aliens who had created the star maps, were creators of mankind? How did she come to this conclusion? Because she had “faith”? Who was she supposed to be? A second-rate John Locke? Or a metaphor of the Titan Prometheus? And how did she come to the conclusion near the end of the movie that the “Engineers” were out to destroy mankind, after . . . uh, creating them? And what is it about this crew that they make such stupid mistakes that end up endangering them? A good example would be the geologist Fifield and the biologist Milburn, who lacked the good sense to run for their lives after spotting the snake-like alien. And could someone please explain how Shaw managed to walk and run around both Prometheus and the moon so soon after giving herself a brutal abortion to rid herself of her alien spawn? I have one last question. Why on earth would Elizabeth (the crew’s lone survivor) even bother traveling to the aliens’ homeworld at the end of the movie, now that she believes they are out to destroy humankind? Was it so important to her to learn about the aliens’ motives that she was willing to risk her life in such a stupid manner?

Moviegoers raved over Michael Fassbender’s performance as the android David. I was too busy feeling confused about the character to consider any accolades for the actor. Exactly how are we supposed to regard David? As another Data from “STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION”? Or as one of the replicants from another Scott film, 1982’s “BLADE RUNNER”? At first, David seemed to be in thrall over human culture, Elizabeth Shaw and the moon in general. Yet, a reason that is never fully explained, he decided to spike Charlie Holloway’s (Elizabeth’s love interest and fellow archeologist) drink with a dark liquid he had found from one of the moon’s stone cylinders. Why did he do that? Again, the movie failed to explain. Some critics were also in thrall over Idris Elba’s performance as Prometheus’ chief pilot, Janek. I was too busy wincing at his attempt to re-create some kind of African-American accent. He had managed to do this successfully in the 2010 movie, “THE LOSERS”. What in the hell happened? As for Rafe Spall’s Southern accent . . . frankly my dear, it sucked.

I wish I could say that I liked “PROMETHEUS”. But if I did, I would be lying. I did not like it one bit. The movie tried to be some kind of profound tale that would leave many moviegoers asking questions. And in a way it did. But my questions about the movie only reinforced my disenchantment with it. What is really sad about “PROMETHEUS” is that it proved to be one of those rare Ridley Scott films that ended up disappointing me. Pity.

Top Ten Favorite Movies Set During the 1500s

Below is a list of my favorite movies set during the 1500s:

TOP TEN FAVORITE MOVIES SET DURING THE 1500s

1. “The Sea Hawk” (1940) – Errol Flynn starred in this exciting, but loose adaptation of Rafael Sabatini’s 1915 novel about an Elizabethan privateer. Directed by Michael Curtiz, the movie starred Brenda Marshall and Henry Daniell.

2. “Shakespeare in Love” (1998) – John Madden directed this Best Picture winner about how an imaginary love affair between playwright William Shakespeare and a wealthy merchant’s daughter that led to his creation of “Romeo and Juliet”. Joseph Fiennes and Oscar winner Gwyneth Paltrow starred.

3. “Anne of the Thousand Days” (1969) – Richard Burton and Oscar nominee Geneviève Bujold starred in this historical drama about Anne Boleyn’s relationship with King Henry VIII of England. Charles Jarrott directed.

4. “A Man for All Seasons” (1966) – Oscar winner Fred Zinnemann directed this Best Picture winner, an adaptation of Robert Bolt’s play about the final years of Sir Thomas More, Henry VIII’s Lord Chancellor. Oscar winner Paul Scofield starred.

5. “Captain From Castile” (1947) – Tyrone Power starred in this adaptation of Samuel Shellabarger’s 1945 novel about a Spanish nobleman’s experiences during the Spanish Inquisition and Hernan Cortez’s conquest of the Aztecs in Mexico. Directed by Henry King, the movie co-starred Jean Peters and Cesar Romero.

6. “The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex” (1939) – Bette Davis, Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland starred in this adaptation of Maxwell Anderson’s 1930 Broadway play, “Elizabeth the Queen”, a fictionalized account of the relationship between Queen Elizabeth I and the 2nd Earl of Essex. Michael Curtiz directed.

7. “Elizabeth” (1998) – Golden Globe winner Cate Blanchett starred in this highly fictionalized account of the early years of Elizabeth I’s reign. Directed by Shekhar Kapur, the movie co-starred Geoffrey Rush, Joseph Fiennes and Richard Attenborough.

8. “Ever After” (1998) – Drew Barrymore starred in this loose adaptation of “Cinderella”. Directed by Andy Tennant, the movie co-starred Anjelica Houston and Dougray Scott.

9. “Mary, Queen of Scots” (1971) – Vanessa Redgrave starred in this biopic about the life of Queen Mary of Scotland. Directed by Charles Jarrott, the movie co-starred Timothy Dalton, Nigel Davenport and Glenda Jackson.

10. “Anonymous” (2011) – Roland Emmerich directed this interesting and highly fictionalized biopic about Elizabethan courtier, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. The movie starred Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson and David Thewlis.

“HOT FUZZ” (2007) Review

“HOT FUZZ” (2007) Review

I have never never seen “SHAUN OF THE DEAD”. Nor have I ever seen “SPACED”, the TV series that had first made British comics Simon Pegg and Nick Frost well known. And if I must be honest, I never really had any intention of seeing “HOT FUZZ” when it first hit the theaters back in 2007. Until I saw the trailers for the movie on television. Thank God I had changed my mind.

“HOT FUZZ” tells the story of New Scotland Yard police constable, Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg), whose uber-dedication to law and order, spotless arrest record (400% superior to his colleagues), and no-nonsense personality drives his superiors (which include Bill Nighy and Steve Coogan) to promote him to sergeant . . . and reassign him to the supposedly crime-free village of Sanford. Feeling like a fish out of water, Sergeant Angel struggles to adjust to rural crime fighting (like arresting under-aged drinkers and a drunken future partner; and searching for a missing pet swan) and the slightly offbeat citizens of Sanford – especially his new partner, the affable Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost). What starts out as a mind-numbing experience for Angel, becomes intriguing when Sanford is rocked (well, as far as the intrepid police sergeant is concerned) by a series of grisly accidents. Angel eventually uncover the truth behind the so-called accidents. With the help of the eager Butterman (who happens to be an action movie fan) and the seemingly inept Sanford Police, Angel brings the . . . uh, guilty party to justice in a blaze of action-style gunplay.

Not only is “HOT FUZZ” one of the funniest movies I have seen in years, the screenwriters (director Edgar Wright and star Pegg) had created an array of eccentric and memorable characters that include Oscar winner Jim Broadbent (who plays Danny’s equally affable chief of police dad, Frank Butterman), Billie Whitelaw (“THE OMEN” fame) and BAFTA nominee Anne Reid (“THE MOTHER”). Also portraying some of the villagers are a collection of British talent from famous action-adventure sagas – Timothy Dalton (the 4th James Bond), Edward Woodward (“THE EQUALIZER”), Paul Freeman (“RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK”), David Threlfall (“PATRIOT GAMES”) and Stuart Wilson (“LETHAL WEAPON 3”). Even Pegg has appeared as an IMF computer tech and agent in the last two “MISSION IMPOSSIBLE” movies. And they are all hilarious . . . especially Dalton’s smarmy supermarket owner, who reminds me of a stock villain straight out of “THE PERILS OF PAULINE”.

I must admit that I truly enjoyed watching Nick Frost’s Danny get under Angel’s skin. Not only was he extremely funny – and witty, but he was also so charming that it was easy how he managed to break down Angel’s chilly exterior and befriend the London cop. And his penchant for American action films has endeared me to his character more than ever. I suffer from the same penchant.

But the real revelation – at least for me – turned out to be Sergeant Nicholas Angel, portrayed with such humorless zeal by star, Simon Pegg. Straight arrow types usually turn out to be the hero or anti-hero’s long-suffering superior or rival in many action films. And it is usually the screw-up or anti-social characters who turn out to be the main character that end up being transferred away from the action. But in “HOT FUZZ”, Angel’s zealous competence causes him to lose his girlfriend (Cate Blanchett in a cameo), but earn the antipathy of his Scotland Yard colleagues (who are eager to get rid of him). I cannot explain it, but is something about Angel that I found very appealing and funny. I guess I simply found him fascinating. In real life, this guy would have seriously annoyed me. But thanks to great writing and Pegg’s tight performance, I found myself rooting for him. The ironic thing about Nick Angel is that he will eventually discover that his nemesis is just as anal as he. Danny Butterman turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to him.

Some critics had complained that “HOT FUZZ” seemed to long for a comedy with a running time of 121 minutes. Considering that the movie was a send-up of action movies, which usually ran at two hours, I saw nothing wrong with the movie’s length. To be honest, I was too busy laughing to notice. I have to say that without a doubt, “HOT FUZZ” is one of the funniest movies I have seen since . . . one of Danny Butterman’s favorite movies, “BAD BOYS 2” and “STARSKY AND HUTCH” (both released in 2003). It has become increasingly difficult to find a comedy that is smart and filled with rich characterization. “HOT FUZZ” can also boast some memorable scenes that I will never forget:

-Sergeant Angel’s New Scotland Yard superiors giving him the news about his reassignment
-Angel’s first night in Sanford (which includes arresting his future partner)
-David Threlfall and Lucy Punch’s hilarious take on “ROMEO AND JULIET”
-Police Constable Doris Thatcher’s witty repartee after dealing with one of Simon Skinner’s employees
-Danny Butterman’s send up on a scene from “POINT BREAK”
-Angel and Skinner’s crazy hand-to-hand fight in the middle of a small-scale model of Sanford.

“HOT FUZZ” became one of my favorite movies from 2007. It is a hilariously rich and sharp tale about murder, conspiracy and a great friendship. Thank you, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Edgar Wright, for a wonderful film.

“LIFE OF PI” (2012) Review

 

“LIFE OF PI” (2012) Review

It has been a while since Hollywood went into a tizzy over a movie directed by Ang Lee. His latest opus turned out to be “LIFE OF PI”, an adaptation of Yann Martel’s 2001 fantasy-adventure novel. The movie earned at least eleven nominations and won at least four, including a second Best Director Academy Award for Lee.

“LIFE OF PI” begins in early 21st century Canada; when a local writer is advised to interview a middle-aged immigrant from Puducherry with a very interesting story to tell. Pi Patel then proceeds to tell the writer about his family and childhood in Puducherry. According to Patel, his father owned a zoo and it was there he first met the zoo’s new Bengal tiger called Richard Parker. When Patel was 16 years old, his father announces his intention to move the family to Winnipeg, Canada. There, he plans to sell the zoo animals and live. Pi, saddened by the idea of leaving his family and his new love, does not tell the news very well.

The family books passage aboard a Japanese freighter called the Tzimtzum. During the voyage, the Tzimtzum begins to founder during a heavy storm, while Pi is on deck. Before he can find his family, a crew member throws him into a lifeboat. As the ship begins to sink, a zebra leaps into the lifeboat and injures himself. The rest of Pi’s family along with other passengers and crewmen die as the Tzimtzum sinks. Once the storm is over, Pi discovers that other animals had made their way into the lifeboat – an orangutan and a hyena. The hyena angers Pi by killing the zebra and then the orangutan. Before he can do anything about it, the tiger Richard Parker suddenly emerges from under the lifeboat’s tarp and kills the hyena. Pi is left alone with Richard Parker, in which the two continue the journey as wary adversaries. By the time their journey ends on the Mexican coastline, they have become friends before Richard Parker disappears into the jungle.

When I first saw the trailer for “LIFE OF PI”, I did not want to see it. Period. Despite my knowledge that the movie had been directed by Ang Lee – of whom I am a fan – I did not want to see it. I did not want to see a movie about a boy surviving God knows how many days in a lifeboat with a tiger. End of story. When the movie was finally released in theaters, I went out of my way to avoid it . . . despite the positive press from the film critics. And even when it accumulated so many Golden Globe and Academy Awards nominations, I still refused to see it. I finally came around and saw “LIFE OF PI” when it was finally released on DVD. Did I regret missing it while it was in the theaters? Hmmmmm . . . not really. But I must admit that it was a pretty damn good film.

One . . . it had a good story. Lee, along with screenwriter David Magee did an excellent job in setting up Martel’s story on screen. The movie devoted at least a good half hour into Pi’s family background and his childhood. They especially took care in revealing his parents’ philosophies – something that would profoundly affect his harsh ocean journey from Puducherry to Mexico. They also did an excellent job in utilizing the literary device of the flashback, using middle-age Pi’s interview with a journalist. In fact, I believe that this device, along with Pi’s first-person (whether he was the 16 year-old boy or the middle-aged man) narration help keep the story alive for me.

There were other aspects of “LIFE OF PI” that impressed me. Mychael Danna won a much deserved Academy Award for writing the movie’s score. Mind you, I could not remember it for the likes of me. But I do recall how perfectly it meshed with the film’s narration. I also have to commend the beautiful visual effects created by the now bankrupt Rhythm & Hues Studios. Their visuals – especially of the animals featured in this movie – struck me as breathtaking. Although some of the animals, like those featured in Pi’s lifeboat, seemed real; while others like the meerkats on the floating island seemed more artistic than real. I especially enjoyed the sequence in which Pi’s lifeboat encountered a breaching Humpback whale and the school of dolphins.

I can see many shaking their heads over my review so far. How could I have enjoyed this movie so much, if I did not regret missing it in the theaters? Remember my reason why I originally avoided the film in the first place? I did not want to see a movie about a boy and a tiger in a lifeboat. While watching the movie, I found myself wishing that the entire sequence featuring Pi and “Richard Parker” could be shorter. It almost seemed to go on . . . forever. This sequence also brought back some not-so-pleasant memories of Tom Hanks and a volleyball named Wilson in the 2000 film, “CASTAWAY”. I felt relieved when Hanks’ character was finally rescued by a freighter in that movie. While watching “LIFE OF PI”, I eventually fell asleep before Pi and “Richard Parker” reached the floating island of the meerkats and Mexico. I woke up just in time to witness the escape from the meerkats island. Why did it have to take so long? I realize that the movie was about Pi’s emotional and spiritual journey. But did it have to take so long? Oh well. It was still a damn good movie that ended on a very satisfying note.

From what I had read, Ang Lee personally selected 17 year-old Suraj Sharma to portray the 16 year-old Pi. And I must say that Sharma gave a stupendous performance. Along with Lee’s direction and the visual effects, Sharma really made that movie. He did an excellent job in conveying Pi’s journey from innocence to heartbreak to spiritual maturity. And I am astounded that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences failed to nominate him for a Best Actor award. What in the hell were they thinking? I realize that the competition was pretty tough for 2012, but still . . . he should have been considered among the top three nominees.

The cast also benefited from excellent supporting performances from Irrfan Khan, who was excellent as the mature Pi. Rafe Spall was charming as the Canadian writer who interviewed Pi. Tabu gave an emotionally satisfying performance as Pi’s mother Gita Pitel. And I was certainly impressed by Adil Hussain’s commanding portrayal of Pi’s father, Santosh Patel. Gérard Depardieu was certain memorable as the Tzimtzum’s unpleasant cook. And James Saito added a great deal of intensity to the heartbreaking scene featuring an interview between Pi and the older Japanese insurance investigator. It was good to see him again.

What else can I say about “LIFE OF PI”? It was a beautiful and heartbreaking adaptation of Yann Martel’s novel. Once again, Ang Lee proved to the world that when he puts his heart and soul into a film, he can create something beautiful. And he was ably supported by an excellent cast led by the very talented Suraj Sharma, Rhythm & Hues Studio’s visual effects and Mychael Danna’s score. I do not think I would ever love this movie. I am sorry, but I could not deal with so many minutes devoted to a boy and a tiger in a boat. But I must say that I enjoyed it very much.